Mr. Geil said he's noticed some people coming in as their unemployment benefits run dry. "It's the lower-paying jobs," Mr. Geil said. "We're not adding at the higher level. We just don't have the need."

Well goll-eee! When the unemployment checks stop, people go out and... work!

Too bad we're not actually building anything though... the US's onerous business climate has handed that ability to China and other places actually interested in wealth creation. Not to worry, Americans are doing quite well learning to become the new economy's servants:

Quote:

In the Institute for Supply Management's services index released Friday, the hotel and food sector showed the most strength for business activity and new orders last month. The strength in service firms "appears to be sustainable," said Anthony Nieves, who chairs the non-manufacturing survey.

Well goll-eee! When the unemployment checks stop, people go out and... work!

Too bad we're not actually building anything though... the US's onerous business climate has handed that ability to China and other places actually interested in wealth creation. Not to worry, Americans are doing quite well learning to become the new economy's servants:

America's future: slaves to the world. Change you can believe in!

Let America start to create jobs right here in the good old USA not outsourcing them to other countries like China and Korea especially. That will start the economy rolling again.Let Jobs start to make Apple products in the US not China. Pay the employees a little less salary but at least they will be working again.

Let America start to create jobs right here in the good old USA not outsourcing them to other countries like China and Korea especially. That will start the economy rolling again.Let Jobs start to make Apple products in the US not China. Pay the employees a little less salary but at least they will be working again.

Yes, jobs!

Why should they have it, when we don't? Why should they stand above us?

It's a very practical plan. It's practical, necessary, and just. It will solve everyone's problems. It will give everyone a chance to feel safe. A chance to rest.

It will give security to the people. Securitythat's what the people want. If they want it, why shouldn't they have it? Just because a handful of rich will object?

Democratic measures to extend tax cuts for most Americans failed in the Senate on Saturday as Republicans -- and some (4*) Democrats -- blocked them because they did not also extend low rates for the wealthy.

Quote:

No Republicans backed the Democratic proposals, and a few (4*) Democrats voted against them.

So you're basically saying the greedy will always find new and interesting ways to be greedy so let's just make it easy for them.

Capital gains taxes on anything but LONG TERM investments need to be taxed at normal income tax rates. This is just another money-making avenue that only the seriously rich have legitimate access to (just like tax-free municipal bonds). So although they are earning income, it isn't taxed that way and it seriously lowers their effective tax rates.

And of course, the elephants showed their real colors today by voting down tax cuts for everyone making under $250,000 or $1,000,000.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

So you're basically saying the greedy will always find new and interesting ways to be greedy so let's just make it easy for them.

First, I'm not saying anything. The numbers are saying something. Second, what the numbers appear to be saying is that the "soak the rich" fiscal policy philosophy doesn't appear to actually work. What that suggests is that those who persist in such policies appear to be ignoring reality.

First, I'm not saying anything. The numbers are saying something. Second, what the numbers appear to be saying is that the "soak the rich" fiscal policy philosophy doesn't appear to actually work. What that suggests is that those who persist in such policies appear to be ignoring reality.

Or maybe the loopholes need to be closed so they can't fucking get out of paying their fair share.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Or maybe the loopholes need to be closed so they can't fucking get out of paying their fair share.

Go ahead. Try it. Let's see what happens. My guess is it won't make a difference. Well, it will likely make one difference...there will be less wealth and production created and less employment in general. My guess it will make that kind of difference.

The problem is that people who want to make all sorts of government-enforced rules (including taxes) always assume that people's behavior will remain static...that they won't change or, if they do, they will change in the way they want them to change. Intentions cannot trump reality.

Go ahead. Try it. Let's see what happens. My guess is it won't make a difference. Well, it will likely make one difference...there will be less wealth and production created and less employment in general. My guess it will make that kind of difference.

The problem is that people who want to make all sorts of government-enforced rules (including taxes) always assume that people's behavior will remain static...that they won't change or, if they do, they will change in the way they want them to change. Intentions cannot trump reality.

Why do you still assume that trickle down economics works? You've had 30 years to try it and it doesn't do shit. All that's happened is the middle class has been decimated, wages for 98% of the country have stagnated, and the super rich have now become ULTRARICH. You had your chance. Time to try something else.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Mentioning only the coming hike in the top income-tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, Christina Romer claims that it is just not plausible that the tax increases scheduled to kick in on January 1st are a major source of uncertainty keeping economic activity anemic (Its the Big Questions That Slow Growth, Dec. 5).

Prof. Romers claim taxes credulity. She fails to mention other tax hikes looming on New Years Day, such as the 33 percent rise (from 15 percent to 20 percent) in the top capital-gains tax rate (and the increasing complexity of the capital-gains tax schedule); the increase in the top federal estate-tax rate from 0 percent to 55 percent; and the hike in the top federal divided-tax rate from 15 percent to 39.6 percent an increase of 164 percent! This dividend-tax rate, by the way, is scheduled to rise again on January 1, 2013, to 43.4 percent.

And dont forget about the hyper-frantic Fed and its spasms of quantitative easings.

Is it really not plausible that the uncertainty now haunting investors is the result of these looming tax hikes, combined with fear about the value of the dollar and anxiety over the still-to-be revealed actual consequences of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and the other incontinent interventions that have spewed forth from Washington in the past three years?

It's hard to talk about the Bush tax cuts without scrambling politics and policy. Politically, the Bush tax cuts have been an unmitigated disaster for Democrats, exposing the Senate and House caucuses as divided, desperate, disorganized. But as a matter of policy, this plan -- which combines short-term tax cuts with renewed support for low income families to sustain today's large government deficits while states and the labor market wobble -- is close to what center left economists want from government policy during a downturn.

Quote:

But this plan has two cardinal virtues: It's temporary and it's stimulus.

So there are a stimulative effects of tax cuts. Who'd a thunk it.

Of course the Atlantic doesn't get it all right:

Quote:

Temporary is key, because making any significant part of the Bush tax cuts permanent is a budget buster. Extended for a full decade, the Bush tax cuts would keep effective tax rates on all Americans at 50-year lows while government spending rose to historic highs. All told, it would deprive Treasury of $4 trillion in the next ten years and potentially destroy our credit with international investors. That's why the only reasonable solution for Democrats is to extend some part of the Bush tax cuts for a few years, fight like hell for reelection, and finally replace the Bush tax cuts with a new tax law that raises more money.

Sadly the only side of the income statement the Atlantic (and liberals) seem to look at when solving (government) budget problems is the income side. The expense side is where much more focus is needed.

P.S. What we're discussing right now are not tax cuts...we are merely discussing the extension of current tax rates and not allowing them to increase in 2011 (or longer I hope.)

President Obama spoke of the need for sacrifice last week when he announced a two-year pay freeze for federal employees.

But feds won't be too terribly deprived in 2011 and 2012. Despite the freeze, some 1.1 million employees will receive more than $2.5 billion in raises during that period.

Congress is expected to approve Obama's proposal, which cancels only cost-of-living adjustments for two years. Regularly scheduled step increases for the 1.4 million General Schedule employees — who make up two-thirds of the civilian work force — will continue. The size of those increases ranges from 2.6 percent to 3.3 percent and by law kick in every one, two or three years, depending on an employee's time in grade.

WASHINGTON—Aides to President Barack Obama are proposing a one-year reduction in the payroll tax as part of negotiations with Congress on a broader package to stave off income-tax increases due to take effect next year.

As the White House and Republican leaders try to reach a deal to extend cuts, one idea that could gain traction is a temporary payroll-tax holiday. Jerry Seib has details. Plus, T. Boone Pickens' wife says 'nay' to Nevada ranchers.

Under the White House plan, the Social Security tax paid by workers would drop temporarily by 2 percentage points, to 4.2% from 6.2%, a person familiar with the proposal said. For a worker earning $40,000, the tax savings would be $800.

The proposal has not won the approval of congressional Democrats or Republicans. Its emergence in the broader tax negotiations is a sign that the White House is trying to break the logjam on those talks before the end of the year, when tax cuts signed into law by former President George W. Bush are due to expire.

White House officials proposed the cut as a way to stimulate the economy, said the person familiar with the talks. The proposal would take the place of an earlier White House push to extend Mr. Obama's signature Making Work Pay tax cut, which reduced income taxes for middle-income individuals by $400 a year.

Republicans had adamantly opposed extending Making Work Pay, and House Democrats were cool to it, as well. But Mr. Obama and Democrats are likely to accept a Republican demand that the Bush-era tax cuts be extended even for wealthy taxpayers, and the White House is looking for more in return for agreeing to extend the cuts for higher earners.

He's not about to let Republicans take all the credit for actually doing what the American people want.

With all the graphs and hooting and hollering coming from the right, coupled with their abject refusal to compromise on any legislation that doesn't involve giving more and more benefits to the rich (who already survived the downturn JUST FINE), one is led to believe that Republicans are happy about the economy not recovering. It's hard to hide the glee in their voices. This is where the right and left differ. No matter how much the left hated Bush, overwhelmingly, the left still hoped things somehow turned out well for the country. It didn't happen, but cheering for failure I certainly was not. The right doesn't really show that same level of patriotism. The party that claims the monopoly on patriotism and bandies about the term anti-american the most has actively rooted AGAINST the interests of their own country because they don't like who's in charge.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

A failure by both parties. Waiting for the change. I am losing my patience. I know the "new blood" is not in yet, but this disaster of a bill needs to die and be replaced by something more realistic and less pork/earmark ridden.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

A failure by both parties. Waiting for the change. I am losing my patience. I know the "new blood" is not in yet, but this disaster of a bill needs to die and be replaced by something more realistic and less pork/earmark ridden.

The 111th is the first Congress in history that failed to produce a budget, one of its most fundamental responsibilities. In fact it has "fail" written all over it. The 111th may go down in history as the worst legislative session of all time:

Quote:

After 21 months of controlling both the White House and Congress, here is what the Democrats have done:

Failed to Support Jobs and Economic Growth. More than a year-and-a-half after adoption of the $814-billion stimulus, job creation remains anemic and economic growth is slowing.

Increased Spending, Taxes, Deficits, and Debt. With their relentless expansion of government, the President and Congress have increased Federal spending by $2.1 trillion. The Presidents budget produces unsustainable deficits that never fall below 4 percent of gross domestic product, and triples the debt over 10 years.

Left a Huge Tax Increase Hanging Over a Weak Economy. Americans face a vast range of tax hikes in just 3 months, but Democrats have deliberately put off any effort to prevent them exacerbating uncertainty among businesses and taxpayers, and stifling economic and job growth.

Launched an Array of Government Takeovers and Bailouts. Democrats have moved to initiate takeovers of health care, college loans, banks and financial markets, the auto industry, and housing markets; have provided unlimited support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and have created permanent bailout authority for too-big-to-fail institutions.

Failed to Produce a Budget. Faced with their unsustainable spending and debt, House Democrats abdicated on the most fundamental responsibility of governing. For the first time in the history of the Budget Act, they failed to write a House budget resolution.

Hid Behind the Pay-Go Sham. Instead of budgeting, Democrats brandished their pay-as-you-go rule a deeply flawed procedure that, when enforced, has been used to chase higher spending with higher taxes.

The 111th is the first Congress in history that failed to produce a budget, one of its most fundamental responsibilities. In fact it has "fail" written all over it. The 111th may go down in history as the worst legislative session of all time:

With all the graphs and hooting and hollering coming from the right, coupled with their abject refusal to compromise on any legislation that doesn't involve giving more and more benefits to the rich (who already survived the downturn JUST FINE), one is led to believe that Republicans are happy about the economy not recovering. It's hard to hide the glee in their voices. This is where the right and left differ. No matter how much the left hated Bush, overwhelmingly, the left still hoped things somehow turned out well for the country. It didn't happen, but cheering for failure I certainly was not. The right doesn't really show that same level of patriotism. The party that claims the monopoly on patriotism and bandies about the term anti-american the most has actively rooted AGAINST the interests of their own country because they don't like who's in charge.

You must be on crack or living in bizarro world.

1. No one is "giving" anything to the "rich." It's THEIR money. We're talking about not TAKING more of it.

2. It's not just "the rich." It's small businesses. They did NOT do "just fine" during the downturn and are NOT doing "just fine" now. They are uncertain about the future. Business people don't hire people when things are uncertain.

3. The Left was positively ROOTING FOR FAILURE under Bush. They even did it when we had boots on the ground in Iraq. Are you kidding me, sir?

The 111th is the first Congress in history that failed to produce a budget, one of its most fundamental responsibilities. In fact it has "fail" written all over it. The 111th may go down in history as the worst legislative session of all time:

As if on cue:

Quote:

The worst Congress in modern history is true to its essence to the bitter end.

Think of this as a political version of the final scene in "Animal House," when the boys from the Delta frat react to their expulsion by busting up the local town parade for the sheer mayhem of it. Bluto Blutarsky (John Belushi) did go on to be a U.S. Senator in the film, and a man of his vision must have earned a seat on Appropriations.